France's Citizens Expected to Help Build Internet Blacklist

Corrupt links to a Sydney Morning Herald article which begins "The French state and internet service providers have struck a deal to block sites carrying child pornography or content linked to terrorism or racial hatred, Interior Minister Michel Alliot-Marie announced on Tuesday." The article is thin on details, but what it does say is bad enough: "Under the French plan, internet users, via a platform, will be able to signal inappropriate sites and the state, receiving the complaints in real time, will then decide whether the sites are to go on a so-called black list to be passed on to internet service providers to enforce site blocks." It sounds like the perfect way to organize an especially malicious DDoS attack. The French government has never been shy about wanting to "protect" French people by censoring Internet content, though.

See guys!

[Sinryc (834433)]

Those guys in Europe really DO have better ideas than America! They are so open and free... oh... wait.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like hate speech to me!

The Internet should be nothing but puppies and rainbows!

Re:See guys!

[by Anonymous Coward]

Why don't they just hire some experienced /. moderators to mod sites as -1, troll; -5, kiddie p0rn; +1, informative; +5, adult p0rn; etc.

Use what already works.

Re:See guys!

[STrinity (723872)]

I for one blame Bush.

Re:

[Darkness404 (1287218)]

I for one blame Bush.

Because we know we never had any censorship under Clinton. We know that every president other then Bush protected the constitution 100%. We know that every president other then bush didn't invade other countries for reasons that didn't involve us. Basically, sure bush is at fault but so are most of the other presidents that have preceded him and I'm willing to bet that if either McCain or Obama manages to get into the White House things aren't going to be much better. And plus, laws are created by c

Re:

[MSTCrow5429 (642744)]

They are just copying China. We'll see if the Great Firewall of France is sexier, or spits in your food.

Re:See guys!

[cayenne8 (626475)]

Seriously...how do the people in EU, like France...put up with this nonsense about censoring speech....like 'hate speech'.

I just don't get it....that is such a large hole you can file things to censor anything. What is wrong with publishing I hate ? I mean, as long as you are not directly inciting violence against such...to where it might really happen?

I mean...I hear in Germany...they can't publish things...even factual things or sell items that are Nazi related? It was, after all...a real part of their history. It just seems to try to stifle real history, and idea. If you can't learn from history, aren't you destined to repeat it?

I know a lot of things suck in the US, but, you can for the most part...say or publish most any idea you wish....even if it is distasteful to many others. It won't land you in jail or anything, but, you may risk public discern and alienation. Although, I do see things like this happening here.....talk about banning the rebel flag, etc.

Anyway...I think anyone should be able to say or display what they wish...after all they are just ideas, words and symbols....grow some thicker skin and get on with your life and feel free to promote your own ideals.

Re:

[AHuxley (892839)]

France would have a "Maginot Line".
All the smart bears just move in via the Ardennes Forest.

First on the list:

[kunkie (859716)]

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html [albinoblacksheep.com]

Then it's very fortunate...

[by Anonymous Coward]

...that the current French government cares more about giving the impression they're doing something that actually improving anything. Just like 80% of what they say, that *wonderful* idea will never see the light of day. ...remember Cairo, the french-funded Google killer? Yeah. That's what I thought.

Re:

[Mornedhel (961946)]

That's *Quaero*, latin for "I seek".

The thing actually has backing from several French universities and France Télécom (and Deutsche Telekom until the German started their own project). Now, while I agree it was largely spawned out of a misplaced patriotism, it was actually started by the Chirac government, not the current one (disclaimer : I am not a fan of either). Plus, it has, since march 2008, funding from the European Commission, so it's not going nowhere, either.

At worse, we'll get

Peer pressure

[SirLurksAlot (1169039)]

Other democracies have done it. France could wait no longer.

Gotta love that "Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we?" mentality.

Seriously though, I want to know exactly how this will work. Who gets to decide what sites go on the black-list, and how deep are they going to dig into a claim before a site gets taken down? I can see a huge potential for abuse here.

Re:

[megaditto (982598)]

I got a great idea.

Don't the French train pigs to hunt for truffles [wikipedia.org]? Pigs are attracted to truffles and can sniff those out miles away...

So, how about they recruit the imprisoned French pedophiles to search for the illegal content? Makes much sense than asking the public to report the sites they aren't likely to visit in a hundred years, anyways.

Re:Peer pressure

[owlnation (858981)]

Seriously though, I want to know exactly how this will work. Who gets to decide what sites go on the black-list, and how deep are they going to dig into a claim before a site gets taken down? I can see a huge potential for abuse here.

It's the wikipedia model. Which, of course, we all know to be fair, free, trustworthy, high quality, and not at all run by cabals or excons.

I know exactly how it will work

[Khyber (864651)]

This finally gives people an excuse to search for child porn in France! "Hey! I'm just looking for it to report it!"

Re:Peer pressure

[Reziac (43301)]

The citizens of France should send their government's websites to the blacklist. That way they'll be sure not to be exploited by internet scammers and the like.

If the French people are on board... good

[Excelcia (906188)]

If the French people are on board with this, and they find a way to make it work, then who are we to say it's censorship and bad? Why is incest illegal? Why don't we introduce children to sexuality? In the strictest sense, these things are malum prohibitum, not malum in se. If sexuality is good, then why forbid it between family members or children? We do that because these are things that, as a society, we believe to be wrong. And because we feel that allowing them would open the door to abuse, making the dangers of those behaviours outweigh their potential good.

If the people of France feel that the dangers inherent in certain pornography outweigh their good, then who are we to say out of hand this is a bad thing? I don't know how popular this law is in France, but it seems to me that if it's unpopular by the majority of people, it simply won't work. If the majority want it, they'll make it (for the most part) work. Sure you'll have people who will be able to circumvent it, but I don't see this as a system they are intending to be safe from circumvention. Just a national net-nanny system. If that's what they want, then I say we apply the live and let live to them as a group and say great - more power to you.

Re:

[mrbluze (1034940)]

If sexuality is good, then why forbid it between family members or children?

This would appear to apply to a society that had absolutely no religious basis. A truly atheist society, perhaps.

But on the contrary, even an atheist society is likely to ban things which threaten the species. Incest / inbreeding causes serious genetic problems. Pregnancy in prematurity causes serious physical problems. Sexual experience in the emotionally inexperienced causes serious psychosocial problems.

So, as such, they are just as likely to be banned in an atheist society than in any other.

It's no

Re:

[erlehmann (1045500)]

we as a civilization have proof that these behaviours cause problems that we, as a society, just don't want to have.

First, deliver the proofs. Scientific, not anecdotal.

Second, are "we as a civilization" also in favor of banning certain people with genetic diseases from procreation ?

Frak, I am only this short of invoking Godwin's.

Re:If the French people are on board... good

[erlehmann (1045500)]

Why is incest illegal?

Most certainly because many people fear that the risk of disabled children is higher in incest pairings. Few, of course, want to continue this thought and forbid haemophiliacs [wikipedia.org] to procreate. It's an irrational, inconsequent thing, you know.

If the people of France feel that the dangers inherent in certain pornography outweigh their good, then who are we to say out of hand this is a bad thing?

Libertarians. Making victimless actions crimes is an authoritarian thing, where you pass on your morals on others without any connection. Your rhetoric is flawed, btw: You seem to be advocating absolute moral relativism on libertarian grounds - but that leads into a inherent chaotic system without any moral directives at all. Finally, let me be the first to ask: If the people of Yemen feel that the dangers inherent in homosexuality justify the death penalty, then who are we to say out of hand, this is a bad thing ?

Re:

[mrbluze (1034940)]

Few, of course, want to continue this thought and forbid haemophiliacs [wikipedia.org] to procreate. It's an irrational, inconsequent thing, you know.

It's why society will continue to oscillate between eugenics/interventionism/social conservatism and hurt-no-one/social liberalism.

So often I hear staff in my department say "these imbeciles shouldn't have a license to have babies", out of sheer frustration at.. well.. imbeciles. But it could just as well be any group. It's just one logical (and not irrational) 'solution' to disease and perceived inferiority. Compassion is its antithesis, whose logic is a little more subtle I would say.

Finally, let me be the first to ask: If the people of Yemen feel that the dangers inherent in homosexuality justify the death penalty, then who are we to say out of hand, this is a bad thing ?

Not wanting to

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Child pornography is illegal in most countries, so I don't think blocking access to those sites is particularly controversial. What might be controversial is the idea of giving a government agency a broad charter to block access to any site that might be considered dangerous to the public welfare. This is exactly what the Chinese government has been doing, and they use their authority to censor sites that are even mildly critical of the government, as well as those that might be promoting "dangerous ideas

Re:

[weorthe (666189)]

Freedom isn't the right of the majority to suppress minority opinion, that's why.

It disturbs me that GP is moderated insightful ...

[erlehmann (1045500)]

... for arguing incoherently. And yet none of the follow-ups are modded up.

Re:

[epee1221 (873140)]

Just a national net-nanny system. If that's what they want, then I say we apply the live and let live to them as a group and say great - more power to you.

You mean, "if that's what they _all_ want," yes? Otherwise, a policy like this runs counter to the "live and let live" idea.

Re:

[MSZ (26307)]

I don't know how popular this law is in France, but it seems to me that if it's unpopular by the majority of people, it simply won't work. If the majority want it, they'll make it (for the most part) work.

That would be fine, anyone not wanting to see something should be free to not look at it. Or free to get some pussified internet feed instead of the real thing.

However, if I understand this correctly, the system will not work this way. No majority opinion, no vote - just some little bureaucrat reviewing an

Wait.. What?

[Cathoderoytube (1088737)]

Does this mean the French government is encouraging people to search for child pornography? Because really, you have to go looking for that stuff specifically if you want to find it to report it.

Re:

[linzeal (197905)]

Have you been to alt.sex newsgroups lately? Every group seems to have links to pedophile and "preteen model" sites if not actual pics. I used to download entire newsgroups at a time to peruse at my leisure but that is impossible today with at least a smattering of inappropriate images in each group. At age 30 I finally just bought a few subscriptions to porn sites because I am sick of seeing anyone sexualized under 21, thats my cutoff point. Get off my lawn!!

translation

[owlnation (858981)]

What's French for "whatcouldpossiblygowrong?"

Re:translation

[Aardpig (622459)]

Maginot?

Michèle

[Mornedhel (961946)]

It's Michèle, not Michel. Wrong gender. (And damn you /. ! I shouldn't have to know HTML entities to type simple accents !)

French internet will become high school! YAY!

[plasmacutter (901737)]

So now anyone who doesn't like what another person says on the internet can spread ugly rumors about them to the "gub'mint" and destroy them.

I'm sure everyone will applaud france's introduction of the ever so just "high school system" of internet enforcement.

So, let me get this straight...

[MattHawk (215818)]

... the idea is to blacklist kiddie porn, by expecting people to tell the government "HEY LOOK AT ME, I'M LOOKING AT KIDDIE PORN AND THIS IS THE SITE I'M AT!!!"? I mean, really, do they actually expect people to admit they have knowledge of these sites?

Yep

[Joce640k (829181)]

I'm sure there's no end of religious meddlers who've got nothing better to do all day than hunt down evil websites.

This law will keep them busy (and that's A Good Thing).

Racial hatred:europe::gun control:us

[R2.0 (532027)]

I keep on seeing regulations on "hate speech" and "racial hatred" referenced in Europe, an dwas just struck by the similarity to gun control efforts in the US. Specifically, there is a problem (violent crime/racial tension) with a root cause (poverty and historical discrimination/current discrimination and a history of sectarianism and ethnic pogroms), and the leaders are chasing after the tools (guns/speech) instead of the actors or the causes.

AND NEITHER ARE WORKING! The locations with the highest levels of gun control in the US also have the highest level of violent crime(NYC, DC, Chicago), and the places in Europe with the strictest speech laws have the most trouble with their minorities (Turks in Germany, N. Africans in France). Does anyone who is intellectually honest believe that the problem is that the laws are not strict enough?

And for those who will say that the situations are totally different, because guns kill and words don't, remember that the next time France lets its southern region burn, and this time there are French citizens in the cars. For that matter, talk to the Jews - there are six million fewer of them and I don't think Hitler ever lifted a finger against one. He just spoke and wrote.

Re:

[no1home (1271260)]

Somebody mod the parent up! R2.0 really nailed the issue on the head. As I commented here on /. for the story about the ISPs agreeing to filter based on the blacklist provided by the non-governmental group with no community oversight, it isn't going to work! If you want to protect the kids (like most of us do), then quit wasting time, money, and energy on garbage like this and go after the pervs and the server hosts.

What makes this interesting is the difference in implementation and how it's wrong. The

Re:Racial hatred:europe::gun control:us

[Mr2001 (90979)]

But the laws have not had that effect; crime has only gotten worse.

Not so. Crime rates in NYC are far lower today than they were 20 years ago - the crime rate there is comparable to Boise, Idaho.

New gun control laws were passed in 2006; in 2007, the homicide rate was 20% lower than it had been in 2006 (although one can't be sure that's a direct result of the gun laws). It hadn't been that low since the 60's.

4chan

[matchbookandfire (1151527)]

This just in - 4chan unavailable in France.

Pedophilia is just a pretext

[WizHard (1307783)]

Frenchfag here. What I think is that pedophilia is just a pretext to this governement. It have beens years a lot of laws have been tried to be applied against illegal downloads, all of them worse than the others. They give up on Oliviennes idea of law (head of a music seller in france), and like magic Odapi appears, for the good of all the people, against child pornography. Of course it sounds good, everyone is ok with a law like this, and no one will go further to understand the real goal. I mean when pol

Oblig Slipper Slope

[iamhigh (1252742)]

Anytime you start to filter and suppress speech, you are well on your way to a troubling situation. Even if you allow majority rule, you can potential be blocking very important minority opinions/info.

Contest

[digitalgimpus (468277)]

There should be a contest to see who can game this system the quickest. First place goes to getting a French government website blacklisted. Second place goes to getting any government website blacklisted. Third place for any Google property Forth place for Facebook or MySpace (though MySpace might have an added perk since it's annoying). Fifth place for any major university This could be fun.

I Wish We Had This in the US

[STrinity (723872)]

I'd write a script that would continually submit whitehouse.gov, loc.gov, foxnews.com, msnbc.com and encourage everybody to run it constantly. It'd be so bitchin'.

Seriously though, I'd like to know what this plan actually entails -- is it something simple you could get around by using a foreign DNS, or would you need full on TOR.

Will the list be public?

[thesaurus (1220706)]

And if so, isn't France just creating a "Get Yer Child Porn Here!" list?

Read the Article Anyone?

[qazwart (261667)]

The article begins talking about how the State of New York (Hey! That's not France!) made a deal with the three big ISPs to block child porn. The article also stated:

Among other countries that have already implemented similar measures include Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Canada and New Zealand.

What is different is that the French have created an actual mechanism to report such sites:

Under the French plan, internet users, via a platform, will be able to signal inappropriate sites and the state, receiving the complaints in real time, will then decide whether the sites are to go on a so-called black list to be passed on to internet service providers to enforce site blocks.

This strikes me as maybe a slightly better way sites are blacklisted in the United States: Individual ISPs just block the site at random, or someone sues someone else in court. By having an official list, ISPs can't ban a site for possible political or competition reasons and claim they're trying to stop something else. There have been several cases where birth control or pro-choice sites have become unavailable and the ISP claims it was merely attempting to shield the eyes of poor innocent children from non-friendly material.

I am not sure of the best way to handle this situation, but since the French government is attempting to do what other Western democracies are attempting to do, I can't quite call this exactly the rise of fascism.

Re:

[Jarjarthejedi (996957)]

But, will it then unblacklist everything, as a result of the blacklisting software being unable to reach the blacklisting site? Oh, that would make for an interesting paradox...

Re:

[mikael (484)]

It depends on the way they implement it. Presumably, the routing tables of the routers will be set in a way, such that the IP addresses of the blocked sites will be unreachable.

But this can be defeated by proxy servers. So France could ban the IP addresses of every proxy server, which might also be a university server or political discussion site.

But such sites could also copy botnet's and have rapidly rotating server IP addresses using DNS entries. So France would also have to ban every international DNS s

Re:DDoS?

[gutnor (872759)]

Post some kiddie porn on a forum and report.

But well that all depends on the sophistication of the system. The real time part is probably a key element. Defacement followed by report could put a site off-line for a few hours/days or maybe months since getting removed from a blacklist is always much harder.

Re:

[nfk (570056)]

That may be a valid point, depending, as you say, on the sophistication of the system, but it is still not a distributed attack. The only way I can imagine a distributed attack is if the system is automatic and there is a threshold above which a site is flagged, but that is not the impression I got from reading the article.

Re:

[Kjella (173770)]

But well that all depends on the sophistication of the system. The real time part is probably a key element. Defacement followed by report could put a site off-line for a few hours/days or maybe months since getting removed from a blacklist is always much harder.

If you got someone doing possession and distribution of kiddie porn for the sake of bringing down a forum, it sounds like serious overkill. It should certinaly ensure that once you got that issue cleared up, they'll be all over nailing that sucker. And they're not going to block YouTube if you try to pull that kind of stunt, only significantly lesser sites which again asks why? Pay some botnetters to DDoS it or script kiddie to deface it and it'll be far more effective than this...

Re:

[Ethanol-fueled (1125189)]

Why go through the trouble to post illegal porn and hate speech when Google will link you to those for free!